Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Simple evidence for ID
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 106 of 135 (293299)
03-08-2006 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Ben!
04-24-2005 11:47 PM


Re: brain / computer /babblefish
I have no evidence that this is a brain but it was created by one(if it grows onto one it could grow into one); mine. I could not find the thread where you were asking me to flesh in the notion of recursion and somatic cells. This is it.
To BEN
Here are four surface sentence areas that remand a potentially existant recursivity in flesh if not blood also.

It requires a discursive function materialized by photons correlated with thermal contact electrons through opposite measurable groups due to differences of attractions and repulsions.
This effects a structure dependent symmetry property of DNA sequence data recursively nameable by panbiogeographic attributes constrained by macrothermodynamic boundaries provided by hierarchical thermodynamic inorganics.
The extension of the time these operations sustain for the duration that can be simulated under is forward infinite, conditioning the effective underlying algebra that links the panbiogeographic baseline through an arbitrary thermostat to the appearance (but not actual existence) of action at a distance, visible by the shape of levels of biological organization quantum mechanically.
The two kinds of 1-D symmetry instruct a served syntax to contruct recursive predictions that divide Gibbs/Gladyshev minimization congruently between molecular and biogeographic clades such that space and time are schemeatically formed of ever larger Real Number orders of higher order pin points place-space in an organon of catastrophe set space.
I think this language performs responds to Chomsky’s “biology” where he said in an on-going reply to Quine,
quote:
“Consider the ”as yet unknown innate structures’ mentioned in this passage. Since they are “as yet unknown innate structures” mentioned in this passage. Since they are “as yet unknown,” presumably they are “knowable,” or to but it more properly, hypotheses concerning these innate structures have exactly the status of propositions of natural science, and in fact are simply a part of biology.
p187 reference below.
The passages I wrote first, I think establish this “part of biology” at least in a first part.
What really did bedevil me at Cornell was the assertion and apparent facial naiveté that genetic experiments on fruit flies still contained “unknowns” AFTER the experiment was over. To show that the reference of ”innateness’ as quoted above is similar to that used in teaching biology at Cornell and by my Grandfather WF Stanely at SUNY Fredonia , told to me as a teenager etc would be difficult but I suspect is not impossible.
The passage of Quine is below (page 187)
Learning by ostension is learning by simple induction, and the mechanism of such learning is conditioning. But this method is notoriously incapable of carrying us far in language. This is why, on the translational side, we are soon driven to what I have called analytical hypotheses. The as yet unknown innate structures, additional to mere quality space, that are needed in language-learning, are needed specifically to get the child over this great hump that lies beyond ostension, or induction. If Chomsky’s antiempiricism or antibehaviorism says merely that the conditioning is insufficient to explain language-learning, then the doctrine is of a piece with my doctrine of the indeterminacy of translation.
Reference -Reflections on Language, Noam Chomsky Pantheon Book
This is the altavist ENGLISH-GERMAN-ENGLISH babblefish determination
It requires a deviating function, which is carried out by the photons, which are referred one on the other with thermal contact contacts by the opposite measurable groups because of the differences of the attraction and the repulsions. This causes a dependent symmetry characteristic of the structure of the DNA sequence data recursively, which are nameable by panbiogeographic the attributes, which are limited by those macro-thermaldynamic borders, which are made available by the hierarchical thermodynamic inorganics. The extension of the time, which these enterprises support during the duration, which under it be simulated can is forward of endlessly and the effective underlying algebra to cause, which connects panbiogeographic the baseline by an arbitrary thermostat with the appearance (however not actual existence) to the activity in a distance, visibly by the form of the levels of the biological organization quantity mechanical. The two kinds of symmetry 1-D point a served syntax contruct to the recursive forecasts on, which divide Gibbs/Gladyshev reduction in such a way congruently between the molecular and biogeographical clades that space and time are formed schemeatically of the area of the disaster set by the ever larger material orders for number higher order of the pin points place area in a Organon.
cause and effect do not translate!!
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 03-08-2006 04:27 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Ben!, posted 04-24-2005 11:47 PM Ben! has not replied

  
Rawel Singh
Inactive Member


Message 107 of 135 (294301)
03-11-2006 2:51 PM


Harmony in nature proves Intelligent Design
A design is intelligent if the produt's components function in complete harmony. Let us see this at two levels, macro and micro. At the macro level the total cosmic system involving the innumerable planets are funtioning without interruption or interference with others. There is also proper design at the sub- macro level that is fascinating. Consider just one item, water. It is vital for living beings, agriculture and industry. Just see how it becomes available. It is stored in the seas, the weathers convert it to clouds, the topography provides conditions for rain, the mountains deflect the clouds to where they would not otherwise go, the water deposits as snow in winter to be availsble in summer. When it rains the unused water goes back to the seas. Just see how many things are working in unison to make the water availabe where needed. At the micro level the human body is a fully integarated system with the different organs performing their functions automatically. In case of problems with any organ the others fully cooperate. The computer was designed later but the human body's CPU, the brain has been always functioning. Look at the way the sensory organs send it all the information. The brain collates that , makes a plan and gives directions for whatever action is to be taken. The system is more than a computr because of the soul and sesitivities and feelings involved.
Rawel Singh

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by nwr, posted 03-11-2006 3:12 PM Rawel Singh has replied
 Message 109 by Modulous, posted 03-11-2006 3:35 PM Rawel Singh has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 108 of 135 (294307)
03-11-2006 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Rawel Singh
03-11-2006 2:51 PM


Re: Harmony in nature proves Intelligent Design
A design is intelligent if the produt's components function in complete harmony.
This evades the question of what is a design.
Usually the thesis of "Intelligent Design" is taken to be the claim that some intelligent being acted as a designer to produce the observed biological diversity.
If you are merely redefining "intelligent design" to mean the same as "harmony in nature", then you aren't really proving anything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Rawel Singh, posted 03-11-2006 2:51 PM Rawel Singh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Rawel Singh, posted 03-11-2006 4:28 PM nwr has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 109 of 135 (294314)
03-11-2006 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Rawel Singh
03-11-2006 2:51 PM


Harmony in nature????
Why is the vast vast vast vast vast majority (and then some) massively hostile to life?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Rawel Singh, posted 03-11-2006 2:51 PM Rawel Singh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Rawel Singh, posted 03-11-2006 4:57 PM Modulous has replied

  
Rawel Singh
Inactive Member


Message 110 of 135 (294322)
03-11-2006 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by nwr
03-11-2006 3:12 PM


Re: Harmony in nature proves Intelligent Design
I am surprised if you see this only redefining ID. I have tried to prove that the universe indeedhas an intelligent design. Harmony between the sub sysyems is a proof of the design having been done intelligently taking into view the various possibilities of malfunctioning and taken care of. Different view points have been given on this subject includuing quantitaive basis, but fuctioning in harmony is the final proof of the design having been done intelligently. ID therefore perfectly fits the bill; as they say "the proof of the pudding is in the eating". I hope it is convincing. If not please say why.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by nwr, posted 03-11-2006 3:12 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by nwr, posted 03-11-2006 5:24 PM Rawel Singh has replied

  
Rawel Singh
Inactive Member


Message 111 of 135 (294326)
03-11-2006 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Modulous
03-11-2006 3:35 PM


Re: Harmony in nature????
If someone is hostile to life it proves that he does not believe in harmony, and people like him will not believe in ID. Any way what does it have to do with the subject?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Modulous, posted 03-11-2006 3:35 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Modulous, posted 03-11-2006 5:10 PM Rawel Singh has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 112 of 135 (294329)
03-11-2006 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Rawel Singh
03-11-2006 4:57 PM


Re: Harmony in nature????
You were using the fine tuning argument for evidence of Intelligent Design. It strikes me as odd since the grand majority of the universe is hostile to life. I wasn't talking about people, belief or anything like that. I was simply saying how almost everywhere is hostile to life, which would indicate the universe is not particularly harmonic with life.
The more common counter argument is no that nature is fine tuned (or in harmony with) life, but that life has fine tuned itself to nature (or the tiny portion of it that is earth): Which is evolution.
As such this isn't evidence for ID, it is only evidence that life exists. Evidence that life exists is fairly self evident, so is uncessary.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Rawel Singh, posted 03-11-2006 4:57 PM Rawel Singh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Rawel Singh, posted 03-11-2006 5:27 PM Modulous has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 113 of 135 (294333)
03-11-2006 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Rawel Singh
03-11-2006 4:28 PM


Re: Harmony in nature proves Intelligent Design
I am surprised if you see this only redefining ID.
You appear to be using "design" as an abstraction, rather than as a reference to the work of a designer. And you are applying "intelligent" to the design (or what you call "design") rather than to the designer.
As Modulous has already commented, you are really using a variation of the "fine tuning" argument, and calling it an argument for intelligent design. But it isn't.
Different view points have been given on this subject includuing quantitaive basis, but fuctioning in harmony is the final proof of the design having been done intelligently.
Biologists see this harmony as a result of the adaptation that they see in evolutionary processes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Rawel Singh, posted 03-11-2006 4:28 PM Rawel Singh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Rawel Singh, posted 03-11-2006 9:50 PM nwr has replied

  
Rawel Singh
Inactive Member


Message 114 of 135 (294335)
03-11-2006 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Modulous
03-11-2006 5:10 PM


Re: Harmony in nature????
I am sorry, I do not get it. What has this got to do with design of the universe? You are talking of behavior, which is governed by the company one keeps and deeds done in ths and past lives. It is not irrelevent to life, but does not apply to design. Any ideas on Intelligent Design?
I can only feel sorry that you say "almost everywhere is hostile to life". It is not so. PLease do not ignore the goodness.Violence cannot be denied but it does not exceed goodness. Probably you have had some unfortunate experiences.
Best wishes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Modulous, posted 03-11-2006 5:10 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Modulous, posted 03-11-2006 5:39 PM Rawel Singh has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 115 of 135 (294337)
03-11-2006 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Rawel Singh
03-11-2006 5:27 PM


hostile means uninhabitable
I am sorry, I do not get it. What has this got to do with design of the universe? You are talking of behavior, which is governed by the company one keeps and deeds done in ths and past lives.
I only mentioned behaviour to advise you that I wasn't talking about behaviour. If the universe was designed for life, why is the majority of the universe uninhabitable? Why is it hostile to life?
I can only feel sorry that you say "almost everywhere is hostile to life". It is not so
So far, we have found only one environment in the universe which is not hostile to life....earth. Even if we only count the solar system, the grand majority of it is hostile to life. Most of the universe is basically vacuum, which poses significant difficulty for life.
Violence cannot be denied but it does not exceed goodness
Most of the universe is devoid of violence. Indeed it is devoid of anything. Making it a hostile environment (it will kill you if you tried to live there).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Rawel Singh, posted 03-11-2006 5:27 PM Rawel Singh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Rawel Singh, posted 03-11-2006 9:38 PM Modulous has replied

  
Rawel Singh
Inactive Member


Message 116 of 135 (294372)
03-11-2006 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Modulous
03-11-2006 5:39 PM


Re: hostile means uninhabitable
It appears that you are an urbanite who would like to make use of every squqre inch of space for habitation. Just check the area of your house and the family size. You could easily have many more people to accommodate but will they be comfortable? No they will be choked. That is why the Creator has provided echological balance. It may seem that the forests and hills are a waste of space and should be occupied; that will be a prescription for disaster. Do you know that the forests and mountains are helpful in influencing the climate for the better? Where will the snow deposit in winter to be available as water in summer? Where will the timber come from? In the absence of the sun you will be lighting bulbs even during day; in fact there will be no natural light. There will be only dark nights as the moon takes light from the sun. All this requires the sun to have a high temporature; so if no habitation is possible near it just as well. Just imagine if the plenets dinot move if they did there will be only one season at a place. If the planets are to so revolve they require open free space. This answers your question whether the universe was designed for life. Obviously the whole universe is not to be packed with life but to ensure that whereever there is life it has quality. Seems resonable?!
God bless
This message has been edited by AdminJar, 03-11-2006 08:50 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Modulous, posted 03-11-2006 5:39 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Rawel Singh, posted 03-11-2006 9:56 PM Rawel Singh has not replied
 Message 119 by Rawel Singh, posted 03-11-2006 9:58 PM Rawel Singh has not replied
 Message 121 by Modulous, posted 03-12-2006 7:14 AM Rawel Singh has not replied

  
Rawel Singh
Inactive Member


Message 117 of 135 (294373)
03-11-2006 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by nwr
03-11-2006 5:24 PM


Re: Harmony in nature proves Intelligent Design
How do you find my description of design abstract when I have given physical examples of harmonious existence? I also invite you to please see my post No 116 for further elaboration of the reality and importance of harmony as a contributory factor to Intelligent Design. Your disdinction between intelligent design and designer is amusing; after all only an intelligent designer can produce an intelligent design. And the design the Creator has given us is flawless; if you find any flaws why don't you modify the design? Your answer will be it is beyond human capability! That should answer all the questions.
Happy living in the Universe!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by nwr, posted 03-11-2006 5:24 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by nwr, posted 03-11-2006 11:54 PM Rawel Singh has replied

  
Rawel Singh
Inactive Member


Message 118 of 135 (294374)
03-11-2006 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Rawel Singh
03-11-2006 9:38 PM


Re: hostile means uninhabitable
Dear Admiistrator,
Could you kindly advise how the message is off topiic.
Thanks

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Rawel Singh, posted 03-11-2006 9:38 PM Rawel Singh has not replied

  
Rawel Singh
Inactive Member


Message 119 of 135 (294375)
03-11-2006 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Rawel Singh
03-11-2006 9:38 PM


Re: hostile means uninhabitable
Dear Admiistrator,
Could you kindly advise how the message is off topic. I have only answered his questions giving physical examples.
Thanks

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Rawel Singh, posted 03-11-2006 9:38 PM Rawel Singh has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 120 of 135 (294379)
03-11-2006 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Rawel Singh
03-11-2006 9:50 PM


Re: Harmony in nature proves Intelligent Design
How do you find my description of design abstract when I have given physical examples of harmonious existence?
The word "design" usually refers to a process that is carried out by a designer. You have said nothing about the designer or about the process. Therefore the way you are using "design" seems abstract - disconnected from its usual source of meaning.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Rawel Singh, posted 03-11-2006 9:50 PM Rawel Singh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Rawel Singh, posted 03-12-2006 9:04 AM nwr has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024